3.5.4.1. A Shield Bash is defined as using a Shield to strike an opponent from a distance further than two steps away.3.5.4.2. A Shield Check is defined as using a Shield to strike an opponent starting from a distance less than two steps away.3.5.4.3. A person may not Bash, Check or Shield Kick an opponent’s rear quadrant. Shield pushing or incidental contact in an opponent’s rear quadrant is allowed.3.5.4.4. Shield Kicking of small Shields and/or Bucklers is discouraged.3.5.4.5. The head may not be the intentional target of any shield maneuver.

I would like to propose the following addition:

Quote:

3.5.4.6. A person may not Bash an opponent with a disabled leg.

I've received and delivered some crappy shield bashes with legged opponents. Shields to faces are the biggest problem (Now disallowed), but being knocked clean over, hitting heads on the ground, being stepped on or other incidental body contact are all problems.

I feel that the potential for injury is significantly higher in comparison to doing the same to a non-legged opponent - An opponent without a disabled leg can easily dodge or move to reduce the impact of the bash, as well as being in a better position to stabilise themselves or catch themselves before hitting the ground. A legged opponent has very little they can do in terms of evading the shield bash or stabilising themselves after contact.

A shield check can often achieve the same result in combat as the shield bash, while presenting significantly less danger to the legged opponent.

(Note: At this time this is not yet a motion, just a thread to promote further discussion)

Bashing legged opponents is dangerous. It's too easy to trip and fall on top of the target, and all your weight gets transferred straight down onto ankles that can't possibly support them.

I'm all for pushing over legged opponents, as long as you don't fall on top of them (and don't make shield contact with the head) but as an avid basher myself, bashing legged opponents _should_ be illegal!

Can't think of their name, but I recall four or so years ago, someone having their hip shattered when someone did this to them. Took them out of fighting for around two years as I recall.

That being said, I don't really see it as being something more unsafe than anything else. I'm open to be convinced otherwise, but accidents happen and if someone is being unsafe, that's different than legislating the potential for being unsafe away.

I blew out Maximian's knee in Riverbend doing this over 10 years ago. He was a big guy, so not a case of small-vs-little or even a hard bash. It's just a vulnerable position. Riverbend changed it's rules regarding this after that.

Other than the fact that /sometimes/ people get hurt, what is the thought process behind this?

That is the thought process - The likelihood of an injury resulting from a running/sprinting shield bash to a legged opponent is significantly greater than the likelihood of injury from the same maneuver to a non-legged opponent.

Horati OTFH wrote:

Running from across the fighting field to level a guy is not acceptable.

The intent of the rule change was to address this issue. Not to disallow safe shield contact to a legged opponent.

Reverend wrote:

How are you going to differentiate/legislate/enforce between someone walking with purpose over to a legged fighter from three or more steps away and pushing them over (technically a violation of this proposed rule as written) and someone that only checks someone into the ground?

Book of War wrote:

3.5.4.1. A Shield Bash is defined as using a Shield to strike an opponent from a distance further than two steps away.3.5.4.2. A Shield Check is defined as using a Shield to strike an opponent starting from a distance less than two steps away.

My interpretation has always been that this refers to the number of steps of acceleration - Can you reach that speed in 2 steps or less? If yes, it's a check. If no, it's a bash. The rules aren't worded that way, but I believe that most people differentiate between a bash and a check based upon speed/force, rather than the actual number of steps.

If you walk from one end of the field to the other without stopping and then make shield contact, most people would not call it a bash despite the fact that it was more than 3 steps.

This could be changed in the future to better match how most people actually view the rules.

Other than the fact that /sometimes/ people get hurt, what is the thought process behind this?

That is the thought process - The likelihood of an injury resulting from a running/sprinting shield bash to a legged opponent is significantly greater than the likelihood of injury from the same maneuver to a non-legged opponent.

So, you're not actually concerned with bashing of legged opponents, but from unsafe behavior against legged opponents.

Akroth wrote:

Horati OTFH wrote:

Running from across the fighting field to level a guy is not acceptable.

The intent of the rule change was to address this issue. Not to disallow safe shield contact to a legged opponent.

But, that's what your proposed rule does.

Akroth wrote:

Reverend wrote:

How are you going to differentiate/legislate/enforce between someone walking with purpose over to a legged fighter from three or more steps away and pushing them over (technically a violation of this proposed rule as written) and someone that only checks someone into the ground?

Book of War wrote:

3.5.4.1. A Shield Bash is defined as using a Shield to strike an opponent from a distance further than two steps away.3.5.4.2. A Shield Check is defined as using a Shield to strike an opponent starting from a distance less than two steps away.

My interpretation has always been that this refers to the number of steps of acceleration - Can you reach that speed in 2 steps or less? If yes, it's a check. If no, it's a bash. The rules aren't worded that way, but I believe that most people differentiate between a bash and a check based upon speed/force, rather than the actual number of steps.

If you walk from one end of the field to the other without stopping and then make shield contact, most people would not call it a bash despite the fact that it was more than 3 steps.

But, that's not what the rules say. Your proposed rule is chopping down a forest because there's a couple of trees that are dead.

But, that's not what the rules say. Your proposed rule is chopping down a forest because there's a couple of trees that are dead.

I feel like the difference between a check and bash is poorly defined in the BoW, but that it is fairly well understood by the average player.

In concept (wording aside) do you feel that making shield contact with a legged opponent while you are running/sprinting at a high speed is dangerous?

If yes, that's what I'm aiming to address here. Nothing else. If you feel that there's a better way to word this, or that other parts of the BoW should be updated to make this more concise, I'm open to suggestions

But, that's not what the rules say. Your proposed rule is chopping down a forest because there's a couple of trees that are dead.

I feel like the difference between a check and bash is poorly defined in the BoW, but that it is fairly well understood by the average player.

Definitely agreed, however, the rules don't specify an amount of acceleration or speed.

Akroth wrote:

In concept (wording aside) do you feel that making shield contact with a legged opponent while you are running/sprinting at a high speed is dangerous?

No, I think making unsafe shield contact with a legged opponent while running/sprinting at high speed is what is dangerous. Given how many hundreds of high-speed bashes take place in this sport, a mere handful of injuries/accidents doesn't shout out to me "we need to ban this" it says "unsafe behavior is unsafe and should be handled on a case-by-case basis".

Akroth wrote:

If yes, that's what I'm aiming to address here. Nothing else. If you feel that there's a better way to word this, or that other parts of the BoW should be updated to make this more concise, I'm open to suggestions :)

Well, the entire BoW is being updated/reworded as we speak... :P

I feel like my default stance in this situation is that there is a difference between bashing a legged opponent and bashing a legged opponent in an unsafe manner. Getting rid of a legitimate tactic in the sport because some people use it unsafely seems to be ... unwise.

About half of the bashes I see to legged people end up resulting in a hold (note this is a biased sample as it is only the ones I see). I also don't see them very often. It is rarely advantageous to take more than one or 2 steps to build up speed against a legged opponent. Two steps is also completely sufficient to lay out a person on their leg, and is generally going to be more accurate and minimize contact to the head. I think this proposal probably needs reworded and reworked, but I'm not against the general idea.